|
From: | Marc Hohl |
Subject: | Re: Syntactical question [was: Re: Call for help with bar lines] |
Date: | Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:22:27 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 |
Am 27.09.2012 09:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:Am 26.09.2012 14:45, schrieb Thomas Morley:[...] Hi Marc, an idea, don't know if it's really helpful: >From 2.16.0-bar-line.scm, bar-glyph-alist: The old definition of bar "empty" was: ("empty" . (() . ())) The old definition of bar "" was: ("" . ("" . ""))With regard to that, I have to make a distinction between "" and '() in the new bar line interface. What do you think would be better: using a symbol instead of '(), so one can write \defineBarLine "|" "|" 'none "|" or using #f instead: \defineBarLine "|" "|" #f "|"I think I'd actually prefer \defineBarLine "|" #'("|" #f "|") or \defineBarLine "|" ##("|" #f "|") to bring some structure into what is being defined in terms of what.
Just to clarify: the arguments are\defineBarLine <bar line> <bar-line-at-end-of-line> <bar-line-at-begin-of-next-line> <span-bar-line>
But some kind of grouping *does* make sense.
or finally defining an "empty stencil" glyph: \defineBarLine "|" "|" "x" "|" (note that "" is not the same as "x", as Harm explained; "" draws a stencil with zero width, "X" would draw *no* stencil at all).What do we need a zero width stencil for?
\bar "" inserts an empty stencil, so the padding around the (invisible) bar line is preserved. If there's no stencil, there will be no padding. Marc
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |